After a Muslim group erected billboards around Sydney proclaiming “Jesus: a prophet of Islam”, a local Catholic bishop denounced the campaign as offensive and said the billboards should be removed.
Really? Removed? The bishop’s discomfort in seeing Jesus coopted by Muslims and demoted from the Trinity is understandable, but his call for censorship must be rejected.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church has a long and proud tradition of champion- ing religious freedom. But this commitment must extend beyond protecting our own interests if it’s to be a truly principled approach. That means sticking up for Islam’s right to be heard, even when we don’t agree with the message.
It’s a principle too many Christians have failed to embrace. Their push to pre- serve their nation’s Christian heritage is understandable, when one considers the dwindling influence of Christianity in many societies, but calling for governments to protect Christian traditions is both un-Christlike and counter-productive. Un-Chris- tlike, because Jesus rejected calls to use political power to further His cause. And counter-productive, because it leaves Christian lobbyists on shaky ground when they urge Muslim or Hindu-majority countries to adopt a more secularist approach.
The end-point of a commitment to even-handed religious freedom is one that many Christians, including Adventists, will be uncomfortable with. It means ques- tioning laws protecting Sunday in Tonga. It means querying government funding of Christian chaplains in Australian public schools. It means wondering whether the NZ parliament should use a Christian prayer. It means speaking out for the rights of Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientologists, Animists and Pagans.
Yes, it’s uncomfortable. But if we would like our “peculiarities” to be respected when we are the minority, the golden rule compels us to extend the same respect to those with whom we disagree.
Comments